Doxing the Enochs: Who Snitched?

According to Yockey's friend Gannon, doxing has been around since the 1950s at least. In those days - before the Internet - undercover members of the Anti-Defamation League of the B'nai B'rith would meet with nationalists, obtain their contact details (so as to 'stay in touch') and then use that information to find out their identities, destroy their reputations and get them fired from their jobs.

The modus operandi - and the intent - of anti-nationalist and left-wing doxers hasn't changed those days, but something additional has been added - publicity. Starting from the 1970s, left-wing doxers would publicise the identities and addresses of nationalists far and wide, and attempt to whip up the populace into a hate-filled frenzy against a particular nationalist in the hope that some public-spirited individual - like the gunman who attempted to assassinate Governor George Wallace - would assault or even kill him.

So we shouldn't underestimate the seriousness of doxing. Those who make a practice of doxing their political foes are in effect calling for their destruction, which, taken to the ultimate level - Schmitt or Yockey would say the level of politics - means the death of one's opponent. Doxing, then, in nationalist and racialist circles should be treated as a crime meriting the severest penalty.

Regarding the Mike Enoch dox, the sequence of events is these. An anonymous person put out a call for the 'Death Panel' hosts of the Daily Shoah radio show at TheRightStuff.Biz to be doxed; this was in the /baphomet/ sub-forum of 8Chan which is entirely devoted to doxing. Two of the hosts - BulbaSaur and Seventh Son ('Sven') - were doxed at /baphomet/, and the information was posted for all to see at the main forum of 8Chan, which is the political one, /pol/. The moderators of /pol/ did not remove this information, and anyone who protested was shouted down. The excuse was that the members of the Right Stuff forum, 504um, had 'offended' 8Chan /pol/ somehow, and so the hosts of the Daily Shoah deserved to be doxed. All this raises these interesting questions: who put the call out for the Shoah hosts to be doxed at /baphomet/, who - if anyone - leaked that information at /baphomet/, and who posted that information at /pol/? And why was an ostensibly nationalist and racialist forum - /pol/ - used in this manner?

As readers may know, Mike Enoch - real name Mike Peinovich - was doxed at /baphomet/ soon afterwards, and the information again was circulated at /pol/. If it was the Antifa who did this, this time they scored an own goal. The New York resident Peinovich - who himself had long been rumoured to have been Jewish - was revealed to have been married to a Jewess for at least ten years, a woman who was a typical New York 'liberal values', ethnocentric Jewess at that. The odd thing was that Enoch, the main host of the Daily Shoah, had taken an aggressively anti-Semitic line for years, and his wife would have known of his politics - indeed, she even participated in it, reading a 'Nazi Christmas poem' on air a few episodes ago. Peinovich became disgraced in the eyes of many of the movement. Luminaries such as Andrew Anglin, David Duke, Richard Spencer and Greg Johnson have leapt to his defence, but the majority of The Right Stuff's followers feel betrayed.

The interesting question - again - is, who did the doxing? Rumours have swirled that the Alt-Lite personality Rob Cernovich - a Jew and a Zionist - was responsible; Cernovich had announced weeks beforehand that a prominent, 'obese' leader of the Alt-Right was married to a Jewish wife, without naming names. (It turns out that a few higher-ups in the Alt-Right -= Greg Johnson, for example - had known about Peinovich's Jewish wife all along). The doxer could have been Cernovich or someone else who had known. My guess is that it was an inside job. In my experience, the Antifa don't do much doxing - they don't possess sufficient skill or knowledge to work out someone's identity online; it's the people in the nationalist and racialist scene - often people you counted as friends - who end up being the ones who supply the information. They do this out of spite or, more often, because they've cut a deal with the Antifa or the Feds or both.

The Peinovich drama is still ongoing, and Peinovich is attempting to save what is left of his political career. He claims to have separated from his wife, an announcement which has been met with scepticism and is seen as the transparent political ploy that it is.

I will save an evaluation of Peinovich's and the Right Stuff's politics for another post. For now I just want to make the argument that, putting Peinovich and his wife to one side for the moment, BulbaSaur and Seventh Son shouldn't have been doxed, especially by a board which claims to be nationalist, racialist, fascist. Some at /pol/ have threatened to dox JazzHands and Halberstram, the hosts of Fash the Nation - the other premier Right Stuff radio show. Given that we don't know who the doxers, snitches and informants are at the moment, we should stay away from 8Chan /pol/ and not trust it; the people who are snitches, informants and left-wing doxers there are using the board for their own ends.

Trump and the Putinistas: Not Looking Good

Following on from my last post on Putin and Russia: it amazes me how gullible my nationalist and racialist comrades can be on topics such as Syria, Russia, Ukraine, Iran; they swallow Syrian, Russian and Iranian state propaganda hook, line and sinker. It's often the man in the street - and the 'normie' journalists - who are in possession of more facts and have a more correct view. The more you are exposed to Sputnik and RT (Russia Today), the less you know.

Ordinary conservatives, such as Paul Roderick Gregory for Forbes, write some good things on Russia (see 'Why Russia Cannot Become Our Friend: Memo to President Trump'): he knows more about Little Vladimir Putin, and understands Russia, better than any Alt-Righter. Another journalist, the Jewish writer Leonid Bershidsky, also does a good job when it comes to writing on Putin.

The essence of Bershidsky's recent article, 'Trump's Team Looks Smarter on Russia', is as follows. Trump wishes to follow in the footsteps of Obama and Bush 43 when it comes to Russia: he wants rapprochement, a 'reset'. Like Bush 43, he gives the impression of hopeless naiveté: possibly, after his meeting with Putin in Iceland, he will say that he 'looked in his eyes and saw his soul' and saw the soul of a good man. (Most Alt-Righters don't remember that; to them, the history of the world started eight to ten years ago).

Perhaps Putin will walk over Trump, like Khrushchev did to the inexperienced Kennedy at the 1961 Vienna summit. Who knows. But the Trump appointees recognise Putin, and Russia, for what they are.

Some critics of Trump's views on Russia couldn't believe it.

Tillerson understands - just like Hitler did in the summer of 1940, when Russia annexed Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina - that in the face of Russian aggression, iron resolve backed by the threat of the use of military force is needed. How should the Ukraine have reacted after the annexation of the Crimea?

I support neither the US nor Russia. European and Western nationalism finds itself in the same diplomatic position as the Third Reich in the early months of 1945: Hitler and Ribbentrop desperately hoped that cracks would appear in the US and Russian coalition and that the two countries would soon come to blows - and give Germany the breathing space it needed to survive the war. Alas for Germany - and fascism - that vision didn't come to pass. But there's no reason why a nationalist Europe today couldn't follow a similar strategy: wait for the two Great Satans - Russia and the US - to have a falling out and then seize the opportunity when it does appear, that is, the opportunity to enlarge nationalist Europe's power, or to regain European sovereignty, which is the same thing.

But wait - isn't Trump on our side? He may do a great job on building the wall and deporting the illegals; he may even tighten legal immigration; but on the whole, he doesn't stand what we stand for:

Too bad Trump doesn't stand for the ideals of the original America First.

A Putinista Tumour: Finstock's A Northern Alliance

Some cancers keep growing back after you excise them; Putinism is one such cancer. Read Robert Finstock's A Northern Alliance: Our Ultimate Salvation, published this week at Counter-Currents (Hunter Wallace wrote an approving post on it): it proves that Putinism never goes away, it just lies dormant for a week or two before bursting its head out of the Alt-Right's stomach like a baby Alien.

The entire premise of the article is flawed: Little Vladimir Putin loves Muslims and Muslim immigrants - they are overwhelming the Muscovites (the white and European Russians who live in the area of historical Muscovy) and will turn Muscovy into another France or Holland soon. Why, then, should the West shackle itself to a corpse?

Russia - which represents an unstable amalgam of Tatar, Mongol, Islamic and Byzantine culture - doesn't belong to the Western Culture anyway. Any reader of Yockey or Spengler - or Hitler - can see that.

But one can't really argue with a Putinista. You can argue until your blue in the face, but like the Jews Hitler used to argue with in his younger days (as we read in Mein Kampf), they'll concede a few points with you one day, go away, and then come back the next day and start on those same points as if yesterday's argument had never happened. It's like punching jelly. All I can do is post a 'dank meme' in response. (Warning: some may find these images offensive).

Here's an interesting quotation:

What does the 'Russian Victory Day' parade in Red Square commemorate,? The defeat of fascist Germany and the communist Russian occupation of Germany, Finland, Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Romania, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Austria, Yugoslavia, Poland: that doesn't sound 'non-pozzed' to me. In fact, it sounds pozzed - downright left-wing, in fact. No wonder our commie Left loves Putin! How do 'conservatives' and 'nationalists' in the West explain all this? Through nonsensical National-Bolshevik There-Is-No-Left-Or-Right rationalising.

All of this sails right over my head. I need a course in Dugin-logic.

This brings up the topic of Putin, the Jews and Putin's notorious anti-fascism culminating in these laws:

Russia

[edit]

In May 2014, Russia's President Vladimir Putin signed a law making the denial of Nazi crimes and "wittingly spreading false information about the activity of the USSR during the years of World War Two" or portraying Nazis as heroes a criminal offence.^[59][60]

The law forbids criticism of Soviet military tactics during the war, which led to the deaths of millions of Soviet soldiers.

(The same tactics have led to the deaths of hundreds? thousands? of casualties of soldiers on the Russian side in today's war in the Ukraine).

And don't mention the ghastly deportations of millions of Soviets to Siberia and the Urals, which led to millions of Soviet deaths - the greatest war crime of WWII and one acknowledge in the West and in Russia to this day.

But, to the Putinista, the laws banning Holocaust and WWII Revisionism only prove that Putin, the master chess player, is fighting Jewish power. Somehow.

Lifestyle Nationalism and the No Fap Scam

Another day, another 'NoFap' thread on 4Chan; this week there will be another, the next another, and the week after that... Nationalists seem to like NoFap ideas, which stem from the work of the notorious crank Gary Wilson and his wife Marina Robinson, who are untiring propagandists for a neo-Puritanism wrapped up in 'neuroscience'; I myself, in a credulous state of mind, once wrote a glowing review of Wilson here.

As to why nationalists like Wilson, the answer is two fold. One is that a strong - very strong - puritan and moral current flows through modern-day nationalism and Far Rightism. Secondly, many nationalists see pornography as 'degenerate' and 'Jewish' and believe that those who obsessively view and masturbate to pornography are victims of 'Jewish mind control'.

Related to this is the fact that those who post on 4Chan/Pol are more often than not NEETs or what the Japanese call 'Hikomori' - Shut Ins; these young men lead unhealthy and unproductive lives, rarely get out and interact with others, and spend most of their free time playing computer games, eating junk food, watching pornography, smoking marijuana, consuming pop culture and 'sh*tposting', or trolling, on 4Chan and other forums. They recognise, to a certain extent, that they lead 'degenerate', unhappy lives and so Wilson's simplistic, reductionist model offers a coherent and on the surface plausible explanation for their misery: it's all the fault of porn (which in turn is the work of the Jews); that's to blame for their alienation, cynicism, listlessness, lack of motivation; that's to blame for their inability to connect to the opposite sex. Get rid of porn, and stop masturbating, and most if not all of your problems will be solved.

Now this idea may seem refreshing to some. Our culture these days doesn't favour self-discipline, self-restraint; it encourages people to indulge in vices as much as possible. Wilson's message stands in contrast to this, and whatever seems opposite to 'degenerate' modern culture can seem good - in the way that Putin can seem good compared to Obama. Wilson's idea harkens back to the 'good old days' before the sexual revolution, when Dr John Harvey Kellogg invented his famous cereal as a means of helping curb masturbation and dampening sexual desire. But Kellogg's puritanism had its roots in religion - he was a Seventh Day Adventist; Wilson's owes its origins to - science, which makes it plausible to NEETs, who aren't inclined to religion.

The trouble is that Wilson claims his ideas are based on scientific facts, and this is false. His followers will claim otherwise: that neuroimaging studies show that pornography stimulates the same parts of the brain as cocaine use, for example. But this is not true: see here. Sexologist Jessi Fischer wrote a fairly comprehensive refutation of the 'science' behind Wilson and NoFap in an article which deserves to be more widely read.

But much of NoFap doesn't accord with common sense, much less science. One can't be addicted to pornography and masturbation, or sex, or gambling - or rather, the pleasant sensations which follow from them - because whatever neurotransmitters and hormones which are 'released' through these activities belong to the body; they can't be classified as foreign agents, chemicals which are introduced from without such as, i.e., caffeine. It's nonsense then that abstention from pornography and continence produces 'withdrawal symptoms' which, if not combated sufficiently, will encourage one to 'relapse'. These drug and addiction metaphors are overblown. Giving up caffeine - a real drug - can induce withdrawal symptoms; abstention from pornography, sex, masturbation, gambling - which are vices but not drugs - can't.

Today I tend to be sceptical of most 'addictions' - addictions to alcohol, for instance; does alcoholism exist or is it merely an excuse for bad behaviour and weakness of will? Modern psychology frames everything in terms of chemicals and withdrawal symptoms, but I think most vices - and the failure to overcome them - owe their origin to weakness of character and lack of virtue. In other words, Aristotle and the virtue ethicist school of philosophy were right...

I first came across Wilson's ideas through a white nationalist website, and it may strike outside observers as paradoxical that the Far Right when it comes to pornography has formed a de facto alliance with the Christians and the feminists; moralistic politics makes odd bedfollows. The question is, why has the Far Right taken this peculiar turn? The answer lies in part in the fact that the Far Right has been out of office in the West for a very long time. This has meant that the energies normally expended in politics must find an outlet elsewhere; they are displaced, to use Freudian jargon, to other activities - such as moralism and what I call 'lifestyle nationalism'.

Far Right nationalist politics becomes a matter, not of seizing power, of running a country, but of moralising and instructing - hence the threads and YouTube posts on the virtues of exercising, working out, etc., and the vices of pornography and masturbation. I myself could jump on the bandwagon if I wanted - I think Western man's diet of meat and dairy is doing him real physical harm - more harm than pornography - but I won't. Such topics, important as they are, should not occupy the first place in our discourse.

Joe Owens returns!

Joe Owens has returned to YouTube after having had his YouTube channel deleted a few weeks ago. National Action - the banned UK Far Right group - were responsible for having the channel deleted. They had complained to YouTube about one of Owens' clips, which used some photos or footage 'owned' by National Action, and YouTube went and deleted the clip in question and then Owens' entire catalogue (which contained well over a hundred videos).

National Action were retaliating against Owens, who had been attacking National Action ever since they first appeared. He had called the National Action 'kiddies' 'dafties' - i.e., morons - and implied that they were 'agents of the Secret State'. Owens views any Far Right group which doesn't practice electioneering and civic nationalist populism as either agents provocateurs, snitches who work for the security services or the Left, or as time wasters and fools. He could be right, so far as I know, about National Action: their appearance and behaviour strikes me as being bizarre, and, as he observed once, despite National Action's avowed fascism, they don't look as clean-cut and disciplined as the old, real fascists of the 1920s and 1930s - Mosley's BUF, for example. British life has degenerated in the past twenty or so years, and so has British Far Right politics; Owens considers National Action to be a symptom of that degeneration. I'm inclined to agree with him on that point... Much of what National Action did seemed counter-productive, and to me they represented a step down.

A lot of nationalists don't like Owens; I do. But I've found that, after a time, the excitement generated by Owens' ideas when you first encounter them wears off, and it's then that his world view appears rather constricted and limited.

To Owens, nearly every Western country boasts a civic populist party which every decent and self-respecting nationalist should throw his weight behind. Owens particularly likes Donald Trump, Marina Le Pen, Nigel Farage (when he headed UKIP) and Australia's own Pauline Hanson. OK, so far so good; but (and here's my objection): suppose you, as a nationalist, have joined Hanson's One Nation and during the election campaign gone around handing out fliers and knocking on doors; suppose, through your untiring efforts and grass-roots activism, you've helped contribute to One Nation's extraordinary electoral performance and to Hanson's winning a seat in the Senate; what do you do in the three years until the next election? Ditto Donald Trump: what do you as an American nationalist and racialist do in the next four years now that he's been elected? Owens implies that we ought to 'support' the successful populist candidate, perhaps by marches, demonstrations, letter-writing campaigns, etc. which are to be aimed at helping the candidate push through any legislative agenda; Owens doesn't really offer specifics. To me that hardly seems a constructive and efficient use of an activist's energies. Besides which, politicians such as Trump don't really need that much in the way of help from activists, particularly street activists; Trump, from the looks of things, looks ready to get to work on building the wall, deporting the illegals, as soon as he  takes office - he doesn't need any encouragement, any prompting, from the base. Nationalist activists, in these scenarios, can be as useful as a fifth wheel. This is why so many on the American Far Right who supported Trump now seem to be struggling to come up with a rationale for their existence.

This raises an important point. The likes of Trump, Hanson, Wilders, Le Pen form part of the liberal democratic system, and parties in that system do not usually attempt to motivate their members to do anything other than campaign and vote on election day - they don't direct them to take up 'extra-parliamentary opposition', for example. Selznick writes in the introduction to his The Organizational Weapon (1952):

Most political parties, organized to function only in the electoral arena, mobilize their adherents only partially. Such groups are usually content to win a general loyalty, and to “get out the vote.” This is consistent with their limited constitutional role. But if a fuller mobilization is attempted, integrating the members so effectively that they become available for continuous deployment in many arenas, a reservoir of energy will be developed that can be used outside the normal framework of political controversy. A source of power is tapped which may be used in conspiratorial ways to gain influence for an elite that cannot compete effectively at the polls.

Selznick cites, as examples of this 'mobilisation', the NSDAP's use of the SA during the period of the Reichstag fire and the Enabling Act in 1933; also, the Czechoslovakian Communist Party's use of marchers, striking workers, and 'action committees' (which occupied factories and government buildings) during the communist coup of 1948.

Selznick's 'organisational weapon', as we can see from his definition of it, can be used and applied by communist, fascist, Islamist groups... We can characterise it as practice, not theory; ideology doesn't come it - or perhaps we can say that the practice is the theory.

So the question is: does Owens want nationalists, populists, racialists to have absolute power or to just to win a few seats? Does he want a mainstream, nationalist political party which operates within the confines of the normal political process, or does he want an 'organisational weapon'...

Karl Loewenstein and the Search for a Führer

I see numerous threads on 4Chan every week on fascism, German National Socialism, etc., and often the posters try and reach, through discussion, what those ideologies were, how they worked and how they would work in Western countries today. Often these discussions make fascism out to be more complicated than it is. But simplicity in theory and practice constitutes one of the hallmarks of a 'totalitarian' ideology - see communism, for instance, or Islam, both of which have reached millions of uneducated, unintellectual and often illiterate people - and fascism is no exception to this rule.

If one wants a good summary of what National Socialism and what it did - from an outside perspective - one should no further than Karl Loewenstein's 1937 monograph 'Dictatorship and the German Constitution: 1933-1937', originally published by the Chicago Law Review. It can be found here and elsewhere on the Internet. The dense paper, in 39 pages, deftly sums up just about everything National Socialism did up to 1938, and all of National Socialism's political theory. Even though it is written by a German Jew who hated the Hitler government, I recommend it for its objectivity; it doesn't stray from the facts and doesn't lapse into hysterical denunciation. It doesn't obfuscate the subject matter, either, by bringing in topics such as Nazi occultism, Hitler's cosmic evil, etc.

Once you view German National Socialism - and fascism - in this light, it can be easily discerned what the fundamental principles of the creed were and how, in turn, these can be applied in Western countries outside of Germany. Admirers of Hitler who come from countries with a tradition of 'democracy' and 'freedom' (especially the Anglo-Saxon countries) will be taken aback by Loewenstein's account: 'So that's how National Socialist Germany worked? I didn't know that'. They might - being steeped in Anglo-Saxon classical liberalism - come to reject Hitlerism unless they overcome their prejudices. Certainly a vast gulf exists between contemporary political practice in National Socialist Germany and America today. The various Jewish and liberal critics of Trump who compared him to Hitler don't know - as we can see from Loewenstein - what they're talking about.

Having said that, if we are to study both the history of Hitler and of Trump, an important lesson can be learned. The lesson is: the quality of one's leader determines the success of one's political movement. Any of the Republican candidates for the presidency except for Trump would not have won against Hilary: they lacked his charisma, his connection with large audiences - and, as it turned out, the American electorate as a whole - and his well-defined media persona. Likewise, you cannot conceive of a National Socialism without Hitler. The party - and the German state itself - pivoted on him like an inverse pyramid. Re-reading Hitler's writings on 'personality', the leadership principle and the rest, and you soon realise that these were intellectual and political justifications for his rule. And there's nothing wrong with that: the majority of Lenin's writing constituted one long argument for the permanent and uninterrupted 'dictatorship of the proletariat', viz., the dictatorship of the 'vanguard party', the Bolsheviks, and for his own rule. Communism relies on charismatic and authoritarian leaders just as much as fascism does.

The closer one is to fascist theory - e.g., books by Evola - the easier it is to lose sight of the simple and obvious truths about fascism; Loewenstein's work serves as a corrective. It gives an answer to the question: why have all the attempts to revive fascism since the war failed? Because the leader principle, the great man principle, plays such an important role in fascist theory and practice - in German National Socialism, for example, the Führer stands at a nexus of state, party and nation - I make the argument that the deficiencies of the post-war fascism can be attributed to the failure to observe this principle. Simply put, we lacked leaders, or we lacked good ones. One couldn't see the likes of Francis Parker Yockey, George Lincoln Rockwell, William Pierce, Tom Metzger, performing the offices of a Führer (even though these men displayed some leadership capability within the confines of their immediate circle). The truth is that they wouldn't have done well even in mainstream Republican-Democratic politics.

As stated in the previous post, the populists in Europe have managed to attract a wide following mainly because of their distinct and recognisable - if not always universally admired - leaders: Le Pen, Farage, Petry, Wilders... In Australia we have the populists Hinch and Hanson, both of them are celebrity politicians who have been known to Australians for decades.

All the populists, of course, represent a different politics from ours - even though they could be classified as 'Far Right'; all of them would reject the constitutional order outlined in Loewenstein's paper - they would back away from it in horror. It goes without saying that Pauline Hanson wouldn't serve as a Führer-type.

In Australia, then, we Australian nationalists must search for a Führer - one who is clean-cut, presentable, media savvy and a little bit 'fash', a lot like the Americans Richard Spencer (National Policy Institute) and Nathan Damigo (Identity Evropa). These men have their critics, but the future leader of the Australian nationalist movement should model himself on these men. To a certain extent, it matters little what Spencer and Damigo say and believe - what matters more is what they look like; humans tend to go off visual, and not verbal, cues.

What went wrong with the NPD? What went right?

My last article got me thinking about German politics again and had me mulling on the question, 'What went wrong with the NPD?'.

The decline of the NPD, and the rise of the AfD, touches a sore spot with me: I've always liked and admired the NPD, and viewed it as the model we Australian nationalists ought to follow; at the same time, I now acknowledge that the NPD approach hasn't generated much in the way of success. Is it the case, then, that 'neofascists' and 'Neo-Nazis' won't ever do well at elections (at least in Western Europe - let's leave out the examples of Jobbik and Golden Dawn)?

Should the NPD be considered a 'Neo-Nazi' party? My answer is: absolutely. I could reel off a list of the similarities between the NSDAP and the NPD. But I can detect some crucial differences: 

1) No charismatic leader. The NPD has been led by men who may be ideologically sound but are not as brilliant as Germany's former Führer: Voigt, Apfel, Pastörs... Which is strange, considering that National Socialism is structured around the 'leadership principle' and what Hitler called 'personality' (that is, the cult of personality around great men). And not just National Socialism: all of the fascism of the 1920s and 1930s revolves around this notion of the importance of charismatic and attractive leadership. Were some fascist from that period to time-travel to the present, the first thing he'd ask of the NPD is, 'Who's your leader? Is he smart? Do people respect him? Does he deliver a good speech? Does he look good in photographs and newsreels? Is he well-dressed? Do women like him?'...

The NPD leadership don't have well-defined media personalities: simply put, no-one knows them nor can they remember, after seeing them, who they are. This is not true of the leaders of the populist parties - men and women such as Farage, Le Pen, Wilders, Åkesson - who are memorable, and well-presented. Compared to them Voigt looks scruffy and ordinary; he reminds everyone of their father. What a contrast Frauke Petry of the AfD presents. It's a great advantage when your party is headed by such a well-dressed, and distinctive, woman.

Oddly enough, the populists - with their understanding of the visuals of politics and politicians - stand closer to Hitler and the NSDAP than the NPD.

2) No uniforms. The NPD has badges, banners, flags, drums, bugles, just like the NSDAP, and does marches and rallies just like the NSDAP. But it doesn't do salutes, doesn't wear uniforms and doesn't structure itself as a paramilitary organisation. It can't do those things because of the law. One might say that this is a good thing, because very few groups can wear a fascist-type uniform with panache and style, and besides which, wearing uniforms - LARPing, as Colin Liddell, a foe of National Socialism, contemptuously calls it - distracts from the doctrine, the politics.

But the fascist doctrine is embodied in the uniform, and the salutes, and the paramilitary ranks. Men in civilian clothes, in business suits, won't bring about Yockey's 'Age of Authority' (that is, age of fascism).

I sometimes ask myself what would happen in Germany were the uniform ban, and the salute ban, lifted. The German nationalists would go back to wearing uniforms in a thrice. Perhaps they wouldn't look good; perhaps the Germans don't have the fashion sense that they did seventy years ago. As one British journalist put it, 'WWII was the last time the Germans dressed well'. But maybe the NPD would manage to pull it off - and enjoy tremendous success.

3) The constitutional order. The trinity of nation, state and party lay at the heart of the National Socialist doctrine, and the Führer - with his special (one might say mystical?) - insight into the minds and hearts of the German people serve to mediate the three. This is the rationalisation, the justification, for the constitutional arrangements adopted by Germany in the years from 1933 to 1945 - arrangements which differ radically from today's and which give National Socialism its character.

We know that the NPD don't think much of the present political system and the Grundgesetz, or Basic Law, imposed on Germany by the Allies and their collaborators: the NPD can't attack the Bundesrepublik openly, but it's safe to assume that their feelings towards it are negative. The question is, would they replace it with the old legal, constitutional system which existed before Germany's defeat - with the essentials of that system at least? Would the offices of the chancellor and president be combined into one; would all other political parties be abolished; would the parliaments of the Länder (states of Germany) be abolished; would Germany become a state with parliamentary elections for candidates one party only... Enquiring minds want to know.

I myself favour Germany returning to the old ways, simply because the system as it stands now doesn't work anymore - if it ever did - and can't be saved. (Or more accurately, it won't be saved: to amend the Basic Law, a majority of votes from the Länder are required, and such votes for an amendment - to deal with the Merkel problem - won't be happening any time soon).

Three alternatives exist: Germany can stay where it is, Germany can turn back to the old days of the NSDAP, or Germany can turn back to the old days of the KPD and SED. (Perhaps a fourth possibility exists: Germany can become an Islamic state under shariah law).

I much prefer the second option to the others. German nationalist intellectuals have to make the case for it. With his brilliant analyses of the Weimar constitution in the 1920s, Carl Schmitt exposed its flaws for all to see, and helped - inadvertently - to weaken Germany's faith in Weimar. Perhaps some modern nationalist intellectual could perform the same service with the Basic Law and the Bundesrepublik.